Destroying Ron Paul from within

[lucky]

huh

I agree completely. We need to kill them with kindness, not negativity.

I personally prefer the good old days of scorch and burn and wild hordes stampeding but being nice has its points. The main idea is we are all different here and that is a good thing.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Unless that message is "I am pissed enough now to come after you with the metaphorical pitchfork and torch." That message can come across loud and clear. And it is best conveyed without name calling and foot stamping. That only detracts from the core message which is.."Do your job as a journalist or STFU". The idea behind the delivery of course is not enticement. You cannot entice a vegetarian to eat a rare steak no matter how well it is presented, even if it has a sprig of parsley next to it..

Best Regards
Randy

Well, I see your point. But, remember some of the worst ones are slowly coming around. You know, like Glenn Beck actually admitting to Lou Dobbs that he may very well be right about the NAU. Or how about Mancow saying he was falling in love with Dr. Paul. I never in my wildest imagination thought Mancow would end up liking Dr. Paul. He didn't agree with him on the war, but actually started coming around, even on that. Dr. Paul is much better describing his stances than most of us can do.

No, the Sean Hannity's of the media are unlikely to ever come about. But, there are still a lot of others left to work with. Let's try it. What would it hurt?

Even on Digg, instead of us getting mad at negative people, how about we try calmly giving them the information and pointing them to the appropriate article or speech from Dr. Paul that would explain it further to them? That way, when someone else looks at the comments, they might be interested enough to take another look at Dr. Paul. It certainly won't entice them to look, if we're screaming at the person dissing him.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

 

[dspectre]

Edit:I'm going to keep it short. What has happened to the MSM and Ed Failor is simply BLOWBACK/karma.

Or another way to think of it, quoting the Bible "You reap what you sow."

It is beyond me why these people have justification to act like "victims."

 

[lucky]

Yes

Tuck,

I agree that the overall message has to be positive. However, I think the fact that Ron Paul is very popular on the internet and not on the MSM is showing a trend. That the MSM is becoming less and less important. Whether the MSM is truly necessary remains to be seen.

I don't have time to go into all the details of the elitism and the distortion they give to the general public. Quite frankly, I just see these negative emails to the MSM as BLOWBACK. I actually like to think of it as karma, but you can call it whatever you want. Is it right or good that people act the way they do? No, of course not. However, for the MSM to think they are victims of this is just pathetic. On some level they brought it upon themselves. They need to take some responsibility.

It's just like when Ed Failor got home phone calls. Was it right? Of course not. But it is just karma for someone who is a crook. And for him to whine about it and act like a victim is sickening.

Yes and the next Failors that want to do stupid things will think long and hard about doing them because they will now know that they will be followed and hounded to the ends of the earth. Want to pull a douche move and try to exclude people well then we will track you down like a dog and let you know our views. It is easy to talk and do crap when you know you are safe from attack.

 

[ecliptic]

balance

There are a lot of angry pissed-off people in this country today. Just listen to the callers of C-Span Washington Journal every morning. This anger has the powers-that-be a little nervous. They will do everything in their considerable power to calm the people down. They may even let a Glenn Beck or similar tool say something controversial... but that's not real progress, only placating the angry masses. Our carefully managed anger is a good thing. Balance that seething anger with positive message and a generally upbeat overall movement and you have the Ron Paul campaign in a nutshell.

When you see a few 9/11 t-shirts among a thousand supporters what you are not seeing is the other 250 who have serious questions about the attacks but are more reserved. Everyone is welcome and we ARE having fun! Defeating an entrenched evil bureaucracy is FUN! Speaking truth to power just feels right!


"The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave. His fetters fall... freedom and slavery are mental states."
- Mahatma Gandhi

 

[nayjevin]

There are a lot of angry pissed-off people in this country today. Just listen to the callers of C-Span Washington Journal every morning. This anger has the powers-that-be a little nervous. They will do everything in their considerable power to calm the people down. They may even let a Glenn Beck or similar tool say something controversial... but that's not real progress, only placating the angry masses. Our carefully managed anger is a good thing. Balance that seething anger with positive message and a generally upbeat overall movement and you have the Ron Paul campaign in a nutshell.

When you see a few 9/11 t-shirts among a thousand supporters what you are not seeing is the other 250 who have serious questions about the attacks but are more reserved. Everyone is welcome and we ARE having fun! Defeating an entrenched evil bureaucracy is FUN! Speaking truth to power just feels right!

nailed it ... excellent, excellent excellent

 

[LibertyBelle]

Yes and the next Failors that want to do stupid things will think long and hard about doing them because they will now know that they will be followed and hounded to the ends of the earth. Want to pull a douche move and try to exclude people well then we will track you down like a dog and let you know our views. It is easy to talk and do crap when you know you are safe from attack.

Letting someone know your views is fine, but when people are calling someone at their private residence they are as bad as the Popparazi. Harrassing someone at home like that I'm sure is not what the founders would have smiled upon. If RP supporters believe in privacy of individuals, then they should believe in Failors privacy, too. People should be safe from attacks of all types in their own homes, and their privacy protected. Call his offices or talk to him in a public place if you want, but please don't call him at his home. I'm sure RP didn't call Failor's home, and wouldn't approve of it.

 

[SeekLiberty]

Learning how to spot tyranny and propaganda

Tuck, I see what you're saying, but it's worth noting that your first post here is a post with criticism.

You became concerned enough to comment when you thought you had a necessary criticism to offer.

Similarly, many people who send emails to a news organization, particularly Fox, are going to be motivated by a desire to criticize. I'd be very, very surprised if most of the emails received by Fox on all subjects weren't critical, particularly with MediaMatters aggregating complaints.

I also would say that you're seeing the natural progression of a movement composed largely of outsiders. People became enthusiastic about the Paul campaign because Paul's views aren't part of the dominant political narrative in the MSM and because it is, quite frankly, a quasi-insurgency. In the first flush of getting excited about such a campaign, people have a lot of positive energy. After a few weeks of seeing the shabby treatment Paul receives from the media and the party, it's natural that some of that energy has been replaced by frustration.

If you think it's bad now, give it six more months. I think the media will demonstrate that it will refuse to cover Paul even if he shows up in Washington with 500,000 supporters, space aliens with the cure for cancer, and Jesus himself. There's a lot of people with a lot of naive enthusiasm who are going to be quite embittered by the process of this campaign, and those people are going to complain. A lot.

Astute observation, FluffyUnbound.

IMO, what one should consider is the VERY likely attempts at sabotaging Ron's campaign and his MESSAGE. I see that being done right here on this forum.

For example ... excessive posts of the mundane to create so much "noise" that the message of Freedom gets drowned out by getting buried in the messages, so the real contributions don't stand out, name-calling people, message title's and threads to incite flamewarz, etc.

If this is happening right here on the Ron Paul Forums, then I guarantee it's not unreasonable to consider that there will be "pretend" supporters of Ron Paul who will do their damnest to make Ron Paul AND his supporters look as bad as possible, and CHILL the message. They do NOT want his/our FREEDOM message spreading in abandon like wildfire. They're trying to get Liberties' message lost right now while they MAY still be able to prevent getting the Truth exposed under control.

We have a VERY tough enemy to fight ... not just people doing the sabotage but also the inculcation of the average person. Ron's message of Liberty is DEPROGRAMMING people and they are waking up! We can't have that happen, now, can we?

My own mission is to help in that educational process too. Righteous indignation about the bad things that are being done to us by our government servants is GOOD, and DESERVES "Patrick Henry"-type dissention. Read/watch Ron Paul's speech on Patriotism.

WITHOUT this emotion and passion, the Freedom message will not get through to enough people FAST ENOUGH.

IMO, one of the most important things one can do right now is to learn how to spot tyranny and propaganda. Once one gets good at doing this, they won't be so easily thrown off. One can deal with it easily (like Ron Paul did with Rudy. )

Besides a rare few, well-meaning Patriots who may over-do it with their passion about Ron Paul and the message of Freedom and Truth, the majority of the problem of anybody thinking "those whacko Ron Paul supporters" will be caused by the ENEMIES of Liberty whom don't want the message spread.

I suggest one to expect propaganda by the enemy. So it's wise to learn how to recognize it, and call it out when we see it.

Here's a good article on How to Spot Tyranny:

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4748

Here's another one on How to Spot Propaganda:

http://www.esrnational.org/whatispropaganda.htm

We must KNOW our enemy, and learn how to use their own propaganda against them so others will recognize it for what it is. Americans will wake up for themselves to what has been happening to them, this inculcation, and it will piss them off enough to wake up their thirst for Liberty, and encourage their emotional drive to spread the Freedom message (like what is happening with Ron Paul's campaign ).

- SL

 

[EvoPro]

I completely agree with Tuck. As much as we hate the MSM, the hate emails will only hurt our cause. Not everyone that works for these companies is a neo-con. The heads may be, but not all of the workers. We must to be nice and polite. Our message will be that much more powerful!

The negativity does no good whatsoever.

 

[yongrel]

i want to distinguish between hate emails and negative emails. I am not going to be sending this email to FoxNews (much as I'd like to):

"Hey, you ignorant pricks! Shut you filthy mouths and listen for once! Ron Paul wants liberty for all. It's only me who thinks that trash like you doesn't deserve it!"

this would be "hate" mail, and I agree that it is entirely detrimental to Ron Paul's campaign. But I will not refrain from sending angry, negative emails to the powers that be.

"Watching your program last night, I was horrified by the attack on Ron Paul. Mr. Cavuto was openly hostile for no apparent reason and spent the entire interview spinning Ron Paul's words and cutting him off. It was appalling. So disgusted was I by this perversion of "journalism" that I will no longer be watching your network."

this is perfectly acceptable. I have no issues sending this to Fox, for it is an accurate and articulate expression of my anger with FoxNews. It is not hateful, but very negative. To restrict us to only positive emails would be disasterous.

"Hey Fox, you guys are sure doing a super job! I mean, golly, your programs are just fantastic. All of those spiffy graphics make my day. And that Neil Cavuto! Wowie! He sure is talented! His shows are just super-duper! But you know what'd be swell? Ron Paul would make your shows even more sup--- oh, never mind. You guys just keep up the good work!"

 

[EvoPro]

yongrel.

yes, it is fine to be critical. Sorry, I meant more like name calling type of negative. The 2nd message you gave in your examples of was negative, but in a polite manner. Which is all good.

 

[lucius]

By the way if you guys want to really know why Ron Paul isn't mentioned in the media as much as other candidates its really simple. In the media and in politics money talks and as far as the media knows Ron Paul's bank campaign fund isn't talking as loud as the others. The same way wall street uses a companies sales numbers to estimate its value the media does the same to evaluate how interested people are in a candidate. One good thing about the minimum attention Ron Paul has received from the media is that its a lot more than others who are in the same bracket as him. If you want to help Ron Paul make sure to keep the messages positive and to donate what you can so that media realizes Ron Paul supporters are more than just youtube addicts.

Welcome, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Here is just one of the ills we are up against--Global Media: A small world of Big Conglomerates. Journalists are just employees of this global commercial-media system. Six media giants are significant beneficiaries of the current social structure around the world, and any upheaval in property or social relations—particularly to the extent that it reduces the power of business—is NOT in their interest. The Military Industrial Defense Complex, among a few rarified others, is a predominant stakeholder in this Global Media. Do you think that Ron Paul’s message could interfere with this newfound 100+ year GWOT?

I hear from you, be nice, play fair, go-along get-along: conform. What if the deck is already stacked, the table is tilted, and the game is rigged? Why conform to this established maligned paradigm? Why not educate and embody Dr. Paul’s message of Liberty to all you meet? Why not harness and channel this seething undercurrent of blind American dissatisfaction, which is begging for a genuine solution such as Dr. Paul’s message? Don’t play their game and expect no help from the Main Stream Media, sure they might acquiesce when they realize the true extent of the Ron Paul Juggernaut, but it will just be an adaptive ploy, because fundamentally, in-the-long run, individual Liberty is NOT in their interest.

The infrastructure for the next-generation Internet is almost complete. Soon these types of dialogs will be severely curtailed. I need to live the message of Liberty now. I hear a clarion call from the past, “Every generation needs a new revolution.” I will feverently work to make the Ron Paul Revolution a reality. Because the time is late and what we don’t ‘see’, tells us that we are all in danger of losing even the illusion of Liberty. To think that in the days of the cold war, we used to feel sorry for Soviet citizens served up with nothing but Pravda and Izvestia! Once again welcome, and this is just my rant.

Watch “Orwell Rolls In His Grave”: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

 

[Gee]

Television media is in business for the same reason everyone else is - to make money. Thats why they started reporting on Paul once he showed his popularity on the internet (prior to that I'm sure they wouldn't have believed it). They don't make money by reporting on unpopular candidates. Most people want to see the big boys.

Even still, I can't see how pissing off the televised media could possibly help Paul get elected.

 

[tsoldrin]

Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

Look. It's beyond a big tent, it's an uncontrollable mob. Paul's message touches people from all walks with wildly divergent views. There are plenty of liberals coming about... they're statists! You can't tell anyone how to support Ron Paul, they'll do it each in their own way. Every one of these types of messages serves only to highlight these things - and guess what, the folks you're trying to reach aren't here, they don't read these boards, they are independent operators. You know who does read these boards though, that you're giving food for thought to? New folks looking to find out what all the hubbub is about - and you're turning them away, AND detractors looking for ammunition - and you're loading them up.

Go do something positive or at least lead by example.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I think some of the responses here, even, are characteristic of what Tuck is talking about.

It's understandable that people are angry. We have every right to be; however, there's a difference between disciplined anger and a temper tantrum. One can be controlled and wielded with deadly effectiveness. The other simply simply gets one sent off to bed without his supper.

Here's a concrete example of what Tuck is talking about:

Yesterday afternoon, the Des Moines Register ran an article on the ITR forum. It didn't even mention Dr. Paul. I was the first person to leave a comment on the article, and my knee-jerk reaction was to angrily call them out for their "lack of journalistic integrity" and being corporate lapdogs.

After a few minutes, though, I calmed down and actually started thinking about what I had said. It dawned on me that perhaps a separate article about Dr. Paul was forthcoming, and that I would then look like a crank or a jerk for having thrown such a tantrum.

I also called to mind the old maxim that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Would the Iowans reading the site be more impressed by some pissed-off guy railing about media bias and corporate control of the media or by someone who politely, but firmly, asks that equal coverage be extended to all candidates?

Fortunately, their website allows you to edit the comments you've left, so I went back and changed mine. I politely pointed out that this was a nice article on the ITR forum, and told them that I hope they give equal coverage to Dr. Paul's rally. I thanked them in advance.

Well, five or six hours later, what should appear but a separate article all about Dr. Paul's rally. It was positive in tone. It quoted Dr. Paul in a very friendly light, as he spoke about being there to celebrate Life and Liberty. It never once used the term "longshot" or mentioned his status in the national polls. It mentioned that he had many supporters there from Iowa as well as from out of state. If my original comment had stayed there, I would have looked like a fool, and many people who read it might have thought that I -- and by extension other Paul supporters -- was a total crank.

My only complaint with the article was that it stated that the turnout was "more than 600". Instead of firing off an angry email or comment about this, though, I decided to stay positive. I emailed the author a note of thanks for the friendly coverage, and I made a comment thanking the paper for such friendly, positive coverage of Dr. Paul's rally. Then I politely pointed out that the organizers and attendees were estimating attendance at over 1,000.

This comment was well-received by regular posters there. One Iowan who had been arguing in other threads against Dr. Paul's inclusion in the forum because he "has no support in Iowa" responded to my comment by saying that 600 or 1000 didn't really matter; either way it shows that he should have been included. I was thrilled to hear this.

Anyway, what it all boils down to is this:

No one is saying that you don't have a right to be angry. We're just suggesting that your anger be disciplined for maximum effectiveness.

Many of us here talk about the words and thoughts of the great Thomas Jefferson. With that in mind, I would urge everyone to try to live by Jefferson's eleventh Rule of Conduct:

"When annoyed, count to ten before you speak; if very annoyed, count to 100."

 

[Birdlady]

I agree 100% with Emilysdad

Here is my take on the matter. Of course when I write to the MSM I am polite, but it doesn't come without force and great deal of passion.

An example of what I might write is this. " I am deeply concerned that a news organization with great influence on public opinion is ignoring a great defender of our Constitution. Please include Ron Paul in more of your new stories and interviews. Thank you. He is the only hope we have."

I don't think some of the people on this board fully understand the world, so this might not make sense to you.

The MSM is not a group of Ma and Pa news organization where they care about what we think and really want our opinions. They just don't happen to forget about Ron Paul each and every day. They get calls from higher ups to cut stories, be more critical, and/or completely ignore a topic or person. We have no say in what they report. Period. It doesn't matter how many emails they get or how nice or how mean they are.

I don't think people should be swearing, but what was said in the OP as negative was using words like media bias, neo-con and warmongers. I don't see how that's far out there. Who cares what the domain is where the email comes from. If I need to worry about my domain name, then we have a serious problem in this country.

 

[LibertyBelle]

I think some of the responses here, even, are characteristic of what Tuck is talking about.

It's understandable that people are angry. We have every right to be; however, there's a difference between disciplined anger and a temper tantrum. One can be controlled and wielded with deadly effectiveness. The other simply simply gets one sent off to bed without his supper.

Here's a concrete example of what Tuck is talking about:

Yesterday afternoon, the Des Moines Register ran an article on the ITR forum. It didn't even mention Dr. Paul. I was the first person to leave a comment on the article, and my knee-jerk reaction was to angrily call them out for their "lack of journalistic integrity" and being corporate lapdogs.

After a few minutes, though, I calmed down and actually started thinking about what I had said. It dawned on me that perhaps a separate article about Dr. Paul was forthcoming, and that I would then look like a crank or a jerk for having thrown such a tantrum.

I also called to mind the old maxim that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Would the Iowans reading the site be more impressed by some pissed-off guy railing about media bias and corporate control of the media or by someone who politely, but firmly, asks that equal coverage be extended to all candidates?

Fortunately, their website allows you to edit the comments you've left, so I went back and changed mine. I politely pointed out that this was a nice article on the ITR forum, and told them that I hope they give equal to Dr. Paul's rally. I thanked them in advance.

Well, five or six hours later, what should appear but a separate article all about Dr. Paul's rally. It was positive in tone. It quoted Dr. Paul in a very friendly light, as he spoke about being there to celebrate Life and Liberty. It never once used the term "longshot" or mentioned his status in the national polls. It mentioned that he had many supporters there from Iowa as well as from out of state.

My only complaint with the article was that it stated that the turnout was "more than 600". Instead of firing off an angry email or comment about this, though, I decided to stay positive. I emailed the author a note of thanks for the friendly coverage, and I made a comment thanking the paper for such friendly, positive coverage of Dr. Paul's rally. Then I politely pointed out that the organizers and attendees were estimating attendance at over 1,000.

This comment was well-received by regular posters there. One Iowan who had been arguing in other threads against Dr. Paul's inclusion in the forum because he "has no support in Iowa" responded to my comment by saying that 600 or 1000 didn't really matter; either it shows that he should have been included. I was thrilled to hear this.

Anyway, what it all boils down to is this:

No one is saying that you don't have a right to be angry. We're just suggesting that your anger be disciplined for maximum effectiveness.

Many of us here talk about the words and thoughts of the great Thomas Jefferson. With that in mind, I would urge everyone to try to live by Jefferson's eleventh Rule of Conduct:

"When annoyed, count to ten before you speak; if very annoyed, count to 100."

Very well said! You do attract more bees with honey. I think this should apply to this forum, too. We could all deal with lessons on civility.

 

[ecliptic]

I love you people!

I gotta say... I love you people! Even Liberty Eagle! I love you guys... and gals!!!
( ... and no I'm not drunk )

I'm angry and negative sometimes because I fully understand the gravity of our situation. This isn't idle talk when people discuss "revolution" - it's deadly serious business. Putting that stuff aside now...

The best approach to getting Ron Paul elected is to follow his lead. His response to Ghoul-iani's attempt at a 911 smear is the perfect example. He politely returned some truth with a little hint of humor. What potential newcomers will be attracted to is the fact that we are having fun! Not phony staged made-for-television cameras kind of "fun" the other candidates have, but real FUN!!!! Hell - people cried for joy during the national anthem! ( me too ) This type of thing is highly contagious!!!

Phony establishment candidates just don't get that feeling...

It sure is nice to have these debates here - even if they get pretty heated sometimes. Bottom line is my behavior "in the streets" is not the same as here in this forum. I know not to put out anything but approved campaign materials. I won't be making any references to how September 11th was a huge false-flag deception, nor any other topics which are still too difficult for many good folks to grasp. I know better and so do the vast majority of like-minded patriots. Patriots are getting wise to the game, after years of misleading dead-ends provided by the establishment to trap them.

 

[Roxi]

I totally agree...put ourselves in the others shoes for a second....If you are unaware of how popular a candidate is and you are in charge of writing an article, doing a news piece, or extending an invitation to a candidate you dont know much about, and then all of a sudden you get hundreds of emails and phone calls from angry people spouting obscenities about how uninformed you are and what an idiot you are for not including RP in your daily life...You will automatically assume that this candidates supporters are all angry mob type of people....It would leave a bad taste in your mouth and you would at that point probably purposely leave that candidate out or worse slam them..
I think its terrible that people were calling Ed Failor in the middle of the night shouting obscenities on his answering machine for his whole family to hear...it shows a severe bad taste in representing RP supporters as a whole (I still think Failor is an ASS)
I think from what I heard people did a great job yesterday in Iowa representing how gracious and respectful RP supporters can be, I am really glad it didnt turn into a Howard Dean style protest....

People should be writing media groups and newspapers about Ron Paul but it should be kept very respectful and ASKING not demanding to hear more about our beloved Dr.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You are right. Unfortunately, the true believers of a "U.S. government conspiracy behind 9/11" are fanatical, and have no regard for any reasoned argument. Anyone who objects to their insistence on using Ron Paul's presidential campaign as a way to push their anarchism is accused of being a neocon agent and ignored.

I suspect that if and when RP's campaign fails, it will be directly attributable to these, frankly, stupid people. They will keep flogging their Alex Jones conspiracy cult all the way to political irrelevance. Then when they get there, rather than realizing their own role in marginalizing themselves, they will blame a main stream media conspiracy to silence the "truth" as they see it.